Russian nuclear submarine armed with 'doomsday' weapon disappears from Arctic harbor: report Putin's

[Yorkie Mom]

Russian nuclear submarine armed with 'doomsday' weapon disappears from Arctic harbor: report

Putin's Belgorod submarine is said to be capable of creating a 1,600-ft 'radioactive tsunami'

A top-of-the-line Russian nuclear-powered submarine has gone missing from its harbor in the Arctic along with its rumored "doomsday weapon," according to multiple reports.

NATO has reportedly warned members that Russia's Belgorod submarine no longer appeared to be operating out of its White Sea base, where it has been active since July. Officials warned that Russia may plan to test Belgorod's "Poseidon" weapons system, a drone equipped with a nuclear bomb that Russia has claimed is capable of creating a "radioactive tsunami," according to Italian media.

The drone can be deployed from the submarine at any time and detonated at a depth of 1 kilometer near a coastal city. Russian state media has claimed the device can create a 1,600-ft. wave that smashes into the coast and irradiates it.

The 600-ft. submarine was delivered to the Russian Navy in July as part of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top-secret program that aims to develop and operate a series of a new class of "super weapons."'

... snip

Koffler said the device is likely not to be operational until 2027, but Putin may be testing it as a means to intimidate both Ukraine its NATO allies in the West. Putin has warned that Russia's potential use of nuclear weapons is "not a bluff."

More: https://www.foxnews.com/world/russian-nuclear-submarine-armed-doomsday-weapon-disappears-arctic-harbor-report

[PortTack]

1. More saber rattling. A radioactive tsunami....it would poison a good portion of Russia..especially

Moscow.

[ColinC]

2. Good point.

There is no way to send a massive nuke to a country that borders Russia without also killing a lot of Russians and negatively impacting their country and environment for years. But would Putin care?

[former9thward]

19. No.

It is is a tactical nuke. It would only irradiate an relatively small area that it was aimed at

[PortTack]

27. A tactical nuke..really no such thing

No one should imagine, however, that it makes sense to use a tactical nuclear weapon. A thermonuclear explosion of any size possesses overwhelming destructive power. Even a “small-yield” nuclear weapon (0.3 kilotons) would produce damage far beyond that of a conventional explosive. (For a graphic depiction, the interactive site NUKEMAP, created by nuclear historian Alexander Wellerstein, allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet.) It would also cause all the horrors of Hiroshima, albeit on a smaller scale. A tactical nuclear weapon would produce a fireball, shock waves, and deadly radiation that would cause long-term health damage in survivors. Radioactive fallout would contaminate air, soil, water and the food supply (Ukrainians are already familiar with this kind of outcome because of the disastrous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986).
No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/limited-tactical-nuclear-weapons-would-be-catastrophic/

[former9thward]

29. That is a political statement by a political appointee.

Mattis smart enough to know that if he starts using terms like "tactical nuclear weapons" the media would be screaming that he thinks it is ok to use them in various battlefield situations. The Secretary of Defense is a political position and rule one is not to embarrass the POTUS you are working for. So of course he makes that statement.

The DOD under the Secretary of Defense has a more practical view:

Robert Soofer, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, also said support is more divided for the creation of W76-2, which is a class of low-yield, tactical nuclear warhead that is different from those in the nuclear triad. An example would be a submarine-launched ballistic missile nuclear warhead.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2334600/dod-official-outlines-us-nuclear-deterrence-strategy/

[PortTack]

31. It's from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.. it is not just a political statement!!

The term “tactical” is often used to imply that the bomb is smaller or less powerful, but this is misleading at best. Some “tactical” warheads in the U.S. arsenal have yields of around 100 kilotons. That’s smaller than some of the larger bombs available today, but still massive: The bomb used on Hiroshima had a yield of just 15 kilotons.
https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/04/29/what-is-a-tactical-nuke-and-would-putin-use-one/

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/xocwrd/putins_tactical_nuclear_weapons_could_pack_the/

““Today, the tiniest tactical nuclear weapon is capable of destruction far worse than what happened in Hiroshima..."”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-small-nuclear-strike-if-putin-uses-a-tactical-nuke-its-world-war-iii

These are not “political statements!!”

[former9thward]

32. Why does the DOD use the term "tactical nuclear weapons" ?

If they are not supposed to exist? SA is a media publication. It is not and never has been a technical publication.

[PortTack]

33. Read my update...or do a search yourself. Tactical nukes is very misleading

[Spazito]

3. Another garbage right wing outlet...

owned by Murdoch.

[GoCubsGo]

6. Yes, only right-wing sites are reporting this.

Murdoch's outlets and the Washington Examiner. It's nothing but fear-mongering, likely in an attempt to whittle away support for sending aid to Ukraine. They want us to give into Putin's extortion.

[Spazito]

9. Exactly!

This is typical of their crap. I hope nobody fall s for it, it is pretty obvious.

[belpejic]

37. I've got a radioactive tsunami in my pants for Murdoch-owned media

Might as well be Tass or Pravda.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. And that US/NATO Hunter/Killer sub that's shadowing it that NATO isn't talking about

sinks it at the first sign of hostilities, then Putin's grand sub, like everything else, turns out to be shit.

[PortTack]

28. I saw an interesting interview with the captain of our stealth nuclear sub..very interesting

Last edited Tue Oct 4, 2022, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

It’s so stealth that it borders on being undetectable. This would be Putin’s f..k around and find out moment!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

30. +100 nt

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. Let's see how this turns out.

1 Dead Dictator in Moscow vs. millions of lives destroyed, directly and indirectly. Russian Generals, do your thing, and become the next generation's true Russian Hero's.

[grumpyduck]

7. Gee, a brand-new Russian submarine in the Arctic?

I wonder if the captain is trying to defect?

[Botany]

8. I can't say how but "we are on it."

If needed that sub will be gone in a heartbeat.

[lindysalsagal]

10. GQP: go ahead. Root for the Russians, now.

[ruet]

11. "capable of creating a 1,600-ft 'radioactive tsunami"

[maxrandb]

12. No worries. The US Navy knows where the subs exhaust port is

[EX500rider]

13. Indeed...I don't think Operation Crossroads or Operation Wigwam had 1,600ft waves

Crossroads:


Wigwam:

[ruet]

18. ...

The amount of energy released by the 3/11/2011 Tōhoku earthquake is estimated to have been 2×10^18 joules. It produced a Tsunami along a 110mi upthrust that reached maximum, sans run-up, wave heights of 24ft +/-. The largest man-made nuclear detonation, Tsar Bomba, came in at 2.1X10^17. Unless it triggered some sort of seismic event on the underlying seafloor, the oceans would barely flinch over anything we threw at them. Even then, seismic events are notoriously difficult to aim.

Measured energy in Japan quake
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami
Japan earthquake & tsunami of 2011: Facts and information
Tsar Bomba

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Nope. Not buying one word of it.

[Disaffected]

15. Oh noos.

Another Russian "doomsday" weapon!

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Fails The Smell Test

Earthquakes create tsunamis.
A magnitude 9 earthquake releases about 8 × 10^17 Joules. It would not create a 1,600 foot tsunami. Maybe 150 meters.
To get that same energy release, it would have to be a 180 MEGATON device.
Since water displacement is a cubic function, a 1,600 foodtwave would need a device 180^3 megatons, or around 5.6 million megatons.
We don't have the technology on earth to contain that great a mass of deuterium to create that big an explosion.
This story stinks of propaganda.

[sarisataka]

17. A more likely explanation

Is it left port for a shakedown cruise with a new crew

[FSogol]

20. Oh, FUD!

[Mr.Bill]

21. Headline: "armed with doomsday weapon"

Last edited Tue Oct 4, 2022, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

First line of story: "rumored doomsday weapon"

This isn't even journalism. A first year high school journalism student wouldn't get away with this bullshit.

[VGNonly]

22. A radioactive tsunami

jewish sharknado with laser beams!

MTG is concerned.

[ThoughtCriminal]

23. You've lost another submarine?

[localroger]

24. Vladdy should ask how all those super V-weapons worked out for the Nazis.

Seeing how he is so obsessed with Nazis, just sayin'.

[Buckeyeblue]

25. The way the Russian's build things it probably sank...

[KY_EnviroGuy]

26. Just in terms of execution, it fails basic physics tests.

Nuclear weapons are very heavy (Little Boy and Fat Man were around 10K pounds) and just imagine the size of a drone capable of hefting any nuke off a submarine platform. It defies common sense since just launching a short-range missile would be much more practical.

Just the mere thought of a small dirty bomb set off above a city will stoke about as much fear as Putin's impossible scenario.

One reason they may have dreamed up this crap is the thinking that exploding a weapon outside territorial waters would avoid a retaliatory strike.

Maybe just like TFG's "thinking" documents into declassification, Putin figures he can "think" this system into existence.

I agree with others that this rumor is 100% fear-mongering bullshit.

[myohmy2]

34. the plot...

...thickens with trump's good friend putin...maybe

...why not just drop a nuke the from sky on what you want to destroy?

...like nobody's going to know where a 1600 foot radioactive wave came from?

...trump should text his good friend putin and tell him to cut it out...

...he's making me nervous...

[Renew Deal]

35. This is a little too Dr. Evil to be believable

A radioactive wave taller than the empire state building created by an underwater bomb? It's a bit hard to believe and has no real benefit. The US would turn Moscow to glass if they did anything crazy. Russia knows this.

[struggle4progress]

36. "When I gazed into Putin's soul, the abyss gazed back into me"